Again, if you’re disallowed from doing the work you want, you are a slave to the system that restricts you.

How did you so violently miss the point? Seriously. Are you being willful about this or are you just obfuscating?

Prejudice? Perhaps the word you’re looking for is “presumptuous?” I understand they both start with P but come on.

If you’re not allowed to peacefully use your body how you wish to use it, then you’re probably a slave to someone.

Wait, only black people were ever slaves? WTF is wrong with you? Are you being willfully stupid?

You need a basic premise before you move onto further steps, no? First, take a stance, then act, etc.

And these are just from the last half day! As you can see, this is just a game for people like this who–for whatever reason–lack actual productive outlets for their rhetorical energies, and so use atheism/libertarianism/whateverism as an opportunity to live out their high-school debate-team CHAMPEEN Walter Mitty fantasies on the Internet.

These ineffectual people are afraid of atheism+, exactly because it threatens their pretend privileged status on the atheism debate-team CHAMPEENSHIP playground, and threatens the real privileged status of the “famous” white d00d atheists they identify with to control discourse and the allocation of resources to real advocacy operations.

So, that’s my Twitter account you’ve pointed to. It’s nice that you’ve posted one side of the conversation out of context to make the point that I’m somehow misogynistic AND racist. Two for one!

I was asking A+ Scribe where atheismplus stood on the matter of sex work. Specifically, I was asking where they stood on the issue of prostitution.

Here’s a hint. I have this crazy notion that women should be able to peacefully do whatever they want to do with their own bodies. It would certainly follow that I’m against regulating sex work. Hence, I’m PRO sex worker’s rights.

As this seems like a basic human right to me, I asked why a drawn out discussion needed to take place as one can be FOR basic human rights without consulting the people affected.

Hence, my analogy to slavery. If one is disallowed to do what they wish to do with their own body, then they are in some part a slave to the system that is restricting them. Just like abortion rights. If women are denied reproductive rights, then they are a slave to the system denying them those rights.

When I brought up this analogy, I was told that it was dehumanizing to both sex workers and black people. This completely misses the point. I wasn’t calling sex workers slaves because they are sex workers. I was making the de facto argument that if any person is not free to conduct their own affairs, then they are in part, a slave to someone else.

Except, I wasn’t talking about Rebecca Watson. I was talking about sex worker’s rights. Your feelings about libertarians aside, Brownian, are you willing to go on record here in this thread to assert that this post is basically a smear and has little to do with reality?

A+ ideals as laid out to the community.
We are…
Atheists plus we care about social justice,
Atheists plus we support women’s rights,
Atheists plus we protest racism,
Atheists plus we fight homophobia and transphobia,
Atheists plus we use critical thinking and skepticism.

Where are the economic ideals stated in there? Thats right aside from a general idea that yes social situations do have sometimes arrive from economic conditions and they are intertwined there is not a single mention of we support capitalist or communist or any other economical structure.

So let me make it simpler so you cant resort to what you believe are cute demonstrations of your intellect..

Show me where anything A+ says it stands for defines an economic or social value contrary to Libertarian(US) Party Ideals?

This article is beyond contemptible. You misinterpret (and I can only assume deliberately) a query about sex workers rights according to atheism+ and present it as if the author is being ignorant and misogynistic and imply he’s arguing in favour of the status of the “old white men” in New atheism you seem to dislike.

You mention nothing whatsoever about what he was arguing for and present a string of comments completely devoid of context. This kind of article is the kind of waste I’d expect to see on a creationist site where they quote-mine biologists. It is misleading, intellectually dishonest and you should be ashamed.

Your feelings about libertarians aside, Brownian, are you willing to go on record here in this thread to assert that this post is basically a smear and has little to do with reality?

Little to do with reality? Are any of those quotes incorrect?

I will go on record as agreeing with those posters who claim that the posting of the above quotes, without context, is unfair and unrepresentative. Further, to say “the kind of people” is a smear. No doubt. Physioproffe, bad. Bad, bad, bad. Don’t do this kind of shit, both for ethical reasons and that it attracts libertarian flies.

Your an angry little guy. Its cute

My emotional state has fuck-all to do with anything. I’m not here to fuck you, so fuck off, you stupid shit.

Where are the economic ideals stated in there?

I don’t know why this is so fucking hard for libertarians to fucking understand.

You believe in the right to free speech, right? The right to persuade others in the political realm? This involves being able to make claims, counter others, and and rebut counters to your original claims? Your ability to vote, again and again? Censorship is like, bad, right?

You would also ostensibly agree that we vote with our purchasing power and our labour in the market, right?

But unfortunately, poverty, illness and discrimination can rob people of that ability to influence the market much like censorship robs people of their ability to persuade in the political realm. So preventing people as much as possible from hitting that rock bottom from which there may be no return, economically, keeps them as actors in the market.

The reality is that there are no political arguments divorced from economic realities.

So brave of you, Brownian. I’m glad to know that political and ideological differences play no part in intellectual honesty on your part. Just to be clear, I couldn’t care less where your ideological or political lie. Even if I were violently opposed to them, I would strongly condemn anyone who attempted to smear you.

We are great at tearing down our opponents’ arguments. <- Not mine. This was tweeted by AtheismPlusPlus (retweeted by me, however).

Was I being unreasonable? Please let me know. <- Asked from me *after* you had been blocked.

Huh, I know a few black people. <- My entire tweet: “ Huh, I know a few black people. I'll be sure to ask them how dehumanizing that analogy was to them.”

Again, if you’re disallowed from doing the work you want, you are a slave to the system that restricts you. <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger Its dehumanizing to black people, because you're using their history against someone else.

How did you so violently miss the point? Seriously. Are you being willful about this or are you just obfuscating? <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger Calling them "slaves" erases all of that complexity and all the human fact away.

Prejudice? Perhaps the word you’re looking for is “presumptuous?” I understand they both start with P but come on.<- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger Look, no black person speaks for their whole group, neither does any sex worker. That's prejudice.

If you’re not allowed to peacefully use your body how you wish to use it, then you’re probably a slave to someone. <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger And using the slaves descriptor is really quite offensive, to not just sex workers, but to black people as well.

Wait, only black people were ever slaves? WTF is wrong with you? Are you being willfully stupid? <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger And using the slaves descriptor is really quite offensive, to not just sex workers, but to black people as well.

You need a basic premise before you move onto further steps, no? First, take a stance, then act, etc. <- Full response to APlusScribe: @shrubblogger Er, its not just about being "against" slavery, but what do we do? How do we do it without hurting people? Etc.

I was asking A+ Scribe where atheismplus stood on the matter of sex work. Specifically, I was asking where they stood on the issue of prostitution.

You really ought to be able to figure this out on your own!

Atheism+ holds that exploitative forms of prostitution should be illegal.

Some A+ people think that all prostitution is inherently exploitative, and so prostitution should always be illegal.

Other A+ people think that prostitution can be non-exploitative if the rights of sex workers are adequately defended, so they’re willing to see prostitution legalized in some situations. They oppose the sort of exploitation that would inevitably take place in an unregulated/neo-Feudal libertarian market.

There was a debate about this between some of the freethoughtblogs people a few months back, and I think it ended with everyone just agreeing to disagree.

Anyway, this is why your slavery analogy was so silly. Slavery is inherently exploitative. Do you think its valid to say: “If people aren’t allowed to sell themselves into slavery, then they’re slaves to the anti-slavery lobby!”

@Xanthe: I would expect people to be able to make up their own mind on the matter if they were given the full conversation, fully in context and without a smear as a prelude.

One can go to my Twitter feed to see this, if they wish. It’s painfully obvious that the op edited my tweets, took them out of context and only showed one side of the conversation. He/she then muddied the water by calling me a misogynist and a racist.

I would think that any bien pensant could determine the facts of the matter and conclude that the op is being dishonest (at best) and slanderous (at worst).

@chaos_engineer: You seemed to have missed my point, though I’ve clarified it several times, now.

I said that if a person is forbidden to do something peacefully with their own body, then they are de facto a partial slave to the person who is restricting them thus.

Ergo, if a sex worker is forbidden from doing sex work, that means that the person forbidding them to do so owns their body in some way. It’s the same for abortion. If a group of people get together and forbid you from having an abortion (or deny you birth control), then you don’t own your own reproductive choices. Therefore, you are, in part, a slave to the people making those choices for you.

This is all besides the point. Do you, or do you not, hold that the original piece the op posted is basically a smear?

You asked where A+ stood. I assumed you were asking for a full, complex stance and action plan/opinion, which I don’t personally have yet. I’d rather let those who know more discuss it, and then evaluate what they conclude for myself.

Of course we we’re for sex workers rights. That seems to be a miscommunication here, where you were asking for something more simple than I assumed.

How would you have responded if I had said that? Would you have demanded a full thought-out plan?

I was considering the complexity of the “is”, whereas you were pontificating about the “ought”.

There is a system which conspires to make *some* women, particularly women of color, “choose” – when its a false choice – to become sex workers. This is more what I was talking about; How do we deal with this system, without taking actions that end up harming the women involved?

Banning prostitution only makes it riskier for the sex workers. Punishing johns, again, makes it riskier for sex workers. The police often punish and abuse sex workers as well. In fact, in many US cities, carrying a condom can be used as evidence of intent to prostitute, which in turn forces sex workers to not carry condoms, thereby increasing their risk.

Its a very complex situation and saying, “We’re for sex workers rights” is absolutely fluff and meaningless without a better understanding and respect of and for sex workers. We want to avoid making decisions like those listed above which serve only to hurt or increase the risks of sex workers.

Twitter is NOT a good format for this kind of discussion. It leads to you mugging for the audience, while I’m trying to have an actual discussion with you.

Also, you can claim you talked to some black friends; what evidence do we have that they exist? And further, no single black person is an envoy for their entire fucking group. I’m sick and tired of being treated that way.

When someone makes an argument about something being harmful and offensive, you don’t find someone from the representative group to contradict that argument; you deal with the argument itself! Just because one or more black disagree doesn’t make the argument false; only logic, reasoning, and evidence does that.

When someone says, “I will ask my black friends” what they’re saying is, that they expect each and every single black person to speak for the whole group, to be a representative, and that is both racist and unfair. No woman is representative of all women. No man is representative of all men. No black person or other people of color are representative of their groups either.

I would suggest you retract your comments about asking your black friends, and actually address the argument on its own merits. What if you were talking to a black person? Or a former or current sex worker? What if?

Its like feminism; who has the better arguments about feminism, Sarah Palin, or Hillary Clinton? (Hint, its not the Republican) Either you take every single woman as representative of a group, and able to speak authoritatively about feminism, or you analyze their arguments for the merits and correctness. Which one is the skeptical path?

Now, the reason I said “Listen to sex workers” is, because we’ve done so little of that, few of us know what would work and what wouldn’t. We don’t really have a grasp of their situation like they do. Contrast this with over 60 years of the Civil Rights movement, or 100 years getting support for Deaf/Hard of Hearing people.

Even then, its important to listen to their perspectives, because, with privilege, its hard for us to see their lives the way they do.

Again, this is not contradictory with the message of evaluating the argument above; You don’t invalidate anyone’s personal experience of reality(like saying they never experienced sexual harassment when they have), but you also have to evaluate that personal perspective and what it contributes to the argument.

Palin adds little to the argument, often making the mistake of generalizing from her own experience to all women, while Clinton adds a significant amount to the argument, using her own experiences, and those she’s met with to bolster it.

(Also, neat factoid: Clinton goes around the world meeting feminist and women’s groups leaders in many countries, often before meeting those country’s leaders. She takes photos with them, because those photos can save those women’s lives in many of those countries. Several third world feminist leaders have spoken out saying how those photos are better than bullet-proof armor. Clinton is having a measurable impact on women’s lives around the world. I have huge respect for her because of this.)

Here’s a clue, John Brown: Those nations in which sex workers have the most rights (approximately, northern Europe), happen to have lots of regulations concerning said work. State-provided health inspections, police enforcement of worker safety, bouncers to keep drunks’ hands (and other parts) off the dancers, court mediation of payment disputes… you can’t have sex workers’ rights without regulation.

Similar conditions, you might be amazed to find out, apply to all other workers, and to citizens in a wide range of circumstances.

Specifically, I was asking where they stood on the issue of prostitution.

Here’s a hint. I have this crazy notion that women should be able to peacefully do whatever they want to do with their own bodies. It would certainly follow that I’m against regulating sex work. Hence, I’m PRO sex worker’s rights.

the vast majority want out of prostitution and don’t know how to leave. They are usually coerced into prostitution either by poverty or by specific individuals. The average age of entry into prostitution is 13. The money made from prostitution flows into the hands of men more often than not, men who usually use violence or other forms of coercion to get their way. These women do not get to choose who they will work with or when. Pimps aren’t nice people, and they pretend to be sex worker rights groups to cover up what they do. The right of women to not be prostituted isn’t on the table for them, and neither is the right of women not to be mistreated as sex workers. The majority of groups focus on destigmatizing sex work or making it easier to run a prostitution operation (which includes legalizing the income of pimps). It becomes pretty obvious what the majority of these “rights” groups are about- the right of men to purchase women for sex whenever they please, and the right of men to sell women for profit whenever they please.

I am not a representative of A+, I just really hate hearing prostitution referred to as “women doing what they want with their bodies”. This is why people think libertarians are assholes- you can spout of phrases that sound nice on paper all you want, anyone who looks at the reality of political issues knows that the catch phrases don’t mean anything in the real world. If you want an easy way to engage this topic you could watch Very Young Girls and try to figure out how your libertarian utopia would prevent 13 year olds from being pimped out by violent men.

Libertarianism, as commonly described by its proponents, is antithetical to social justice.

Just remember your stance on libertarians when people who support A+ keep coming out and saying its inclusive not exclusive.

Of course it’s exclusive. It excludes people who think their freedom to contribute to marginalising marginalised groups such as women, transexuals, PoC, etc. trumps having safe spaces for such marginalised groups to participate free from such marginalisation.

One of the goals of Atheism+ is to preclude endless fucking discussions on whether or not policies such as affirmative action or social welfare programs constitute

I don’t mind exclusion.

Neither do I.

I mind social manipulation with a goal towards driving a political wedge.

When I said, I have some black friends, I’ll ask them if my comment was dehumanizing to them, I was making a rather sharp point, which you seemed to have missed.

When you stated that my analogy (an analogy which you misunderstood) was dehumanizing to both sex workers and black people, you were taking the position that you spoke for the emotional state of ALL sex workers and ALL black people (which I still don’t understand how black people came into the conversation, as you completely missed the point of my analogy).

Therefore, I countered with the simple statement that, hey, you know what? I know some black people. I’ll ask them what their opinion is on the matter. I’ll let them judge if my comment was “dehumanizing.” I also know a ton of sex workers. I’ll ask them as well.

You set the perimeters of the conversation, then you got offended when I worked within those perimeters.

Now, I’m willing to grant that Twitter can confuse things. However, I’m not so gracious as to grant that this post and your continued stance on the matter (after several clarifications) are not willful.

What do you have to say about how the op has conducted himself/herself on the matter?

And my point was proven by your non answer. There is no incompatibility with The originally stated ideals of A+

Yet the supporting crowd continues to push away libertarians.

I can tell you i was on board with the original ideals.

But as soon as i saw what is happening and the underpinnings of the people involved i want no part.

Just remember your stance on libertarians when people who support A+ keep coming out and saying its inclusive not exclusive.

I don’t mind exclusion. I mind social manipulation with a goal towards driving a political wedge.

are you talking to me? I haven’t joined A+, but I’m thinking about it.

Also, it wasn’t a non-answer. You said you think its bullshit that your political affiliation is talked about as an insult. I provided an example of a different political affiliation that is also widely used as an insult, and you failed to either disapprove of the use of the word “fascist” as an insult OR provide a reason why its okay to use “fascist” as an insult but not “libertarian”. You have no real argument except that it feels really unfair that people are actually judging you based on what you believe. You keep implying that all political positions are equivalent and should be included and provide no reason for anyone to agree with such an absurd suggestion, and simply whine when no one takes you seriously.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

It took all of the first line in the Libertarian statement of principles from our platform this year to show your ignorance.

Again show me in the principles laid out to the atheist community that tells us that we will not be welcome if we dont hop on the socialist wagon?

We are in agreement what you are saying about not wanting discussion and what i am seeing. My issue is thats not what was presented and its pure social manipulation. Basically what is trying to be formed here is Liberal VS Conservative Atheism.

That is not as its being presented. Present it that way so that truth can be seen.

You seemed to have missed my point, though I’ve clarified it several times, now.

I said that if a person is forbidden to do something peacefully with their own body, then they are de facto a partial slave to the person who is restricting them thus.

I think I’m still missing the point.

Having sex is a thing you can do peacefully with your body. There aren’t currently any laws in the US that prevent you have having sex in private with a consenting partner of legal age. (Up until recently there were anti-sodomy laws, and those were a bad thing, but it seems silly to call them “slavery” or even “partial slavery”.)

Engaging in sex work is an economic transaction, and economic transactions are commonly regulated, or prohibited if they’re not in the public interest. This kind of regulation isn’t slavery.

I mean, suppose I’m peacefully running a coal mine where the conditions are so unsafe that none of my workers every lives past 30. This lets me keep costs down, and I’ve driven all my competitors out of business, so I’m the only employer in the area. One day, a government bureaucrat barges in and says, “This really sucks! You have to start following these basic safety regulations. If you can’t figure out how to follow the regulations and still make a profit, then I’m sure some other company will come in and succeed where you failed.”

In this scenario, have I become a partial-slave? Have my workers become partial-slaves? If your answer is “yes”, then I submit that using such a silly redefinition of the word “slavery” is an insult to the people who really were slaves.

Hmmm…I’ve tried posting a link to the original conversation twice, to no avail.

Regardless, if people are interested, they can see the original conversation for themselves and determine whether or not I’m a “misogynist” or a “racist.” Though, my whiteness and libertarianism are not in question.

I would hope that all right thinking, honest people of good will will determine this as nothing more than a smear and a hit piece.

This is all beside the point and a conversation we can hold elsewhere. I’m interested in knowing why you haven’t denounced this post for what it is. It should be perfectly clear to you by now that what was posted is not anywhere near a fair representation of what was said.

This is all beside the point and a conversation we can hold elsewhere. I’m interested in knowing why you haven’t denounced this post for what it is

I haven’t researched it enough to take sides. The quotes were out-of-context, but that’s acceptable if they’re not complete misrepresentations of the intended argument, and if there’s a link back to the original context. I’d need to do more reading to decide how much your argument was misrepresented.

I just saw that you were asking what the A+ position on sex work was. I’d already researched that and had the answer ready, so I thought I’d help you out. Did you have any more questions about it?

What bothers me most about this blog post is the complete erasure of the context of the exchange. The context was sex work. People keep saying ‘listen to sex workers’ – but how is erasing the entire issue/topic from your blog posts helping any sex workers be heard? How is omitting that the topic was sex work helping people learn anything about that topic?

You folks are supposed to understand about marginalization, and erasing the ENTIRE topic of sex work from the post is actual, right-in-front-of-your-eyes marginalization. This is how silencing works, it’s not that people don’t allow you to speak, it’s that they completely erase the issue, or they just reframe it out of discussion.

So people in the thread will discuss it, badly, and they will think they know what they are talking about but they don’t, and then it becomes an insurmountable task to counter all the mis- and dis- information flying around. I don’t even know where to start.

Most don’t seem to even be familiar with the concept of decriminalization. Most don’t seem to understand the differences between different types of ‘regulation’. Most don’t understand that the issue of calling sex workers ‘slaves’ is not just about how it is dehumanizing, that’s it’s also about the legal conflation of consent and non-consent. Don’t even know where to start.

Just to be clear, I in no way called sex workers “slaves.” I made an analogy to slavery when one is not allowed to pursue their own course of action when it comes to their body. I know you probably know that was the point I was making, but I’m just putting it out there again.

John Brown, the autobiography of the woman who performed in “Deep throat” states that she was forced into it at gunpoint–by someone off-camera holding a gun on her. Are you defending her right to sex work? How about her right to NOT do it if she doesn’t want to? And how would “no regulations” accomplish that?

I would be very happy to have that conversation with you, but I don’t feel at liberty to go into any of that before people asking me question first denounce both what was said of me in this post and how it was said. Nobody is arguing in good faith when the elephant in the room isn’t being talked about.

This is no longer about my beliefs. This is about rank intellectual dishonesty and an obvious smear. Why aren’t you taking the op to task on this rather than trying to pin me down on some ancillary ideological point?

“John Brown, the autobiography of the woman who performed in “Deep throat” states that she was forced into it at gunpoint–by someone off-camera holding a gun on her. Are you defending her right to sex work? How about her right to NOT do it if she doesn’t want to? And how would “no regulations” accomplish that?”

Being forced to do anything at gunpoint is already illegal, actually. I’m not really sure how defending a right to work conflicts with being opposed to people being forced to work at gunpoint. The person holding the gun was her husband, iirc, does this mean we should no longer defend the right to get married?

Whenever I hear “if you can’t do ‘x’ than you are a slave to someone else” I hear “i im 16 and reading ayn rand in my parents basement and can’t be bothered with a shred of actual empathy, and I live in a fog of incredulity of privilege.”

It would be nice if you could cite some evidence before making wild claims and smearing sex worker rights groups as a front for pimps.

Your claim that the average age of entry into prostitution is 13 has been thoroughly debunked. You should know that considering the fact that I’ve seen people point it out to you on previous occasions.

If you’ll note John Brown, I never called you a racist or a misogynist.

I do think you miss my point a lot, and are purposefully clueless on other points.

To other person: I used Palin because she’s far more prominent than Condoleeza Rice. Basically, Palin’s put herself out there as some kind of female role-model, and the kind of comments she makes on feminism are… laughably obtuse.

I feel she’s a good teaching example, because comparing her and Clinton has helped in the past to teach people why you don’t just take any random woman’s word on feminism as gospel. You have to actually use your brain and evaluate, while being mindful of your own biases.

I don’t believe I said you did call me those things. If I did, point it out to me and I’ll offer a sincere apology.

As for the rest, that’s not the issue anymore. We can have this discussion elsewhere. I have yet to see you denounce what was originally written by the op. Because of your continued refusal to do so, I take it as implied that you agree with the sentiment.

So, I’ll just come right out and ask, since this is becoming a boring ordeal.

Do you agree with the op in that I am a “Clueless racist misogynist white d00d “libertarian” asshole high-school debate-team CHAMPEEN?”

Further, do you agree with the tactics he used to misrepresent my position.

Too, since you’re weighing in on the thread, why haven’t you come out to say, “Whoa…wait a minute! That’s not how this went down! Here’s what was actually said.”

I do think you referring to your talking to some black friends was at the very least, tinged with racism, if not just mere category prejudice.

I do disagree with how this was presented. Its not difficult to show tweets between two people; I tend to use such sites when talking with friends to give them context.

Your disdain for “regulations” without specifying what you mean in this thread does back up his assertion about you being a libertarian.

Good regulations(and concomitant enforcement) protect sex workers from abuse and harm. Things like licenses, regular check-ups, police protection from intimidation by pimps and johns, all go a LONG way to helping sex workers.

Those are regulations. The “free hand” of the market has had centuries to fix this, and has not. It has failed because it never existed. People – in general – do not act in their own rational self-interest. They are compelled, pressured, taught, manipulated, intimidated, and so on, into a stunning array of stupid decisions because we are not as rational as we’d like to believe.

“I do think you referring to your talking to some black friends was at the very least, tinged with racism, if not just mere category prejudice.”

Again, you’re being willfully dishonest. It was YOU who brought up “black people” originally. I was responding to the rubric YOU outlined by saying what I said. Surely, if you can take offense on behalf of ALL “black people,” I can retort by offering you some counter evidence, no?

Some white people DO have black friends, after all. I know that doesn’t fit in with the approved paradigm being preached here, but it’s an empirical fact, nonetheless. It stands to reason, that some individuals out of an ENTIRE group that you have taken it upon yourself to feel offense for, may not be so appreciative.

In case you’re interested, I have friends who are homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, asian, Afghan, German, Latino, liberal, conservative, libertarian, socialist, communist and feminist. May I speak to them as well without being labeled racist, homophobic, classist, etc…?

Don’t answer that. It was rhetorical.

The irony of this whole thing is completely lost on you. What you’re saying about me, more than likely is something you feel about yourself.

So, I’ll accept your reluctant and half-felt apology for what it is and you and I can part ways.

Er…as someone who likes the idea of Atheism+ (even signed my last blood donation with it), I don’t think this post does it any favors.

Posting this guy’s comments without context is a scuzzy thing to do. It’s the kind of thing we don’t like when people do it to us; Stephanie Zvan, for instance, is currently dealing with someone who took a comment on her blog and quoted it out of context to turn it into a death threat. SallyStrange has had a post twisted and pulled without regard to its broader meaning. We are supposed to be better than that. If this guy’s argument was so bad (it might well be, I think I’d disagree with him on a number of things, but…) repost the whole thing complete with the other side of the conversation that prompted his comments.

Demolish the information, not the person; let’s not become the personal nastiness and underhanded tactics that prompted the need for Atheism+ as a refuge in the first place.

Let’s take a look at the preamble to the Libertarian Party platform which was given as “proof” that libertarians aren’t selfish assholes:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

What does “sole dominion” mean? Is it “you can’t tell me what to do”? All kinds of people tell us what to do, starting with our parents, teachers, baby sitters, and elder siblings. I spent two years in the Army where people were telling me what to do. My bosses at work tell me what to do. My doctor tells me what to do. When I buy a pair of shoes the sales associate tells me what to do.

Freedom isn’t always a good thing. The freedom to starve is not good when you’re the one starving. But even if we accept that freedom is generally good, it’s not the only good thing. Physical security, which even prisoners can have, is good. The love of a family is good, yet families are one of the least free groupings we know. The emotional ties of families, imposed upon us by other family members, cannot be discarded with ease.

I’ve seen libertarians explain this away by claiming that choices or the freedom to choose are what make something good. I know in my life I’ve made choices that were not good. Also as I said above, often choices are made for me. Why is my bosses’ choices good for them but not good for me?

The reduction of everything to choices presupposes all choices made will be optimal. If one is making a choice without complete knowledge of the possibilities, then the likelihood of making the best choice erodes. It is impossible for anyone to be knowledgeable about everything required to make life’s everyday choices.

Plus individuals must abide by choices made for the good of society. I cannot set myself up as a physician without passing a medical exam to show I’m minimally competent. Many other professions have similar qualifications to keep the incompetent from preying on the rest of us. Yet only the truly hardcore libertarians object to proficiency examinations, the rest of us want professionals to be qualified to do their jobs.

Quite often the price of greater freedom tomorrow is less freedom today. Total freedom today would just run down accumulated social capital and ignoring future problems. So the choice for freedom is the necessarily the right one on any particular question.

Furthermore, if limiting freedom today may enhance it tomorrow, then limiting freedom tomorrow may enhance it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism, which makes freedom an absolute, is wrong.

Libertarianism’s absolutist view of freedom leads to ludicrous outcomes. For instance, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into slavery. (It has been possible in certain societies to do that by assuming unrepayable debt.)

Most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Thus people don’t choose absolute freedom. This refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as it defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. So people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

Quite the Scheiße Sturm you got in the comments, ehh comrade? I though John Brown was hanged for that dust up in Harper’s Ferry Va. quite a long time ago but I don’t think he was a libertarian, more of a wild eyed radical egalitarian. He helped start a bit of a bigger row too if remember correctly or did I miss something?
Anyway I find it disturbing how such little things can spark such animosity, especially amongst those that feel threatened by others with a social conscience that request to be treated in a respectful manner and to not be maligned for expressing their distaste for being treated otherwise.

Oh hey, look, taken in the proper context, Shrubblogger’s quotes are . . . still shitty. His initial assertion that “talk to sex workers” is not an appropriate response to the question “what does Atheism+ think about sex work” doesn’t make any sense – “talk to sex workers” is the best response to that question, as far as I can tell from my understanding of A+’s ideals.

The point, which John Brown / A Shrubblogger seems to have missed, is that in order to deal with an industry like sex work, we need to very carefully approach how consent is dealt with, because people can be forced and coerced by those with more power. THAT is the regulation that sex work needs. If you just say “People can do with their bodies what they want,” you’re approaching the issue too simplistically. Sex work could only be legal IF there were sufficient legal protections for the workers to prevent them from being abused by clients and employers.

Though you have points that can be rationally discussed between two adults, the underlying issue remains. The OP both edited my tweets, posted them out of context without the other side of the conversation, and started out the entire post by calling me racist and misogynist.

I’ll ask you, @kft, as I’ve asked others…is that fair game to you, just because you disagree with my position. Is a “shitty argument” as you call it, justification for outright slander and vilification?

Why do people continue to obfuscate trying to pin me down on ideological points when the elephant in the room remains?

I demand nothing, actually. Any honest person would give an apology voluntarily.

You may giggle and find this trivial, but I see nothing funny about it. I’ve never engaged in these kinds of tactics and I never would, regardless of whom I’m debating.

This is good, though, because whenever you’re out and about chastising others for acting like damned fools or worse, slanderers, then one can simply point back to this blog post and your hypocrisy will be on full display.

I’ve suffered no damage from this, but you certainly have. It’s a shame you don’t see that as you cloak yourself in the vestments of justice and morality.

I believe I’ve made my point and there are enough links out there proving the OP is untrue. Hopefully none of these comments will be deleted, though given the integrity on display by the OP, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Regardless, if anyone wishes to discuss further, you can find me on Twitter.

Why not show us the whole converstaion instead of quote-mining the poor fucker into oblivion? Got something to hide?
Shit like this is A+ downfall. You are all a pack of moaning, self pitying, dishonest twats. Go fuck yourself.

FTB. The skidmark on the cancerous polyp on the arsehole of a dishonest, 9/11 truther.

Libertarianism’s absolutist view of freedom leads to ludicrous outcomes. For instance, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into slavery.

You’re going to have to go a bit more slowly for me I’m afraid. Is your argument here that giving people certain freedoms might lead to them choosing, of their own volition, to do to themselves something that you think is a bit nuts. And that therefore, giving them such freedoms is in itself a bit nuts?

Because if this is your line of thinking, can you wake me when you get to not letting people choose how much cake they eat, or how much mofo’ing Jameson they drink, or whether or not to ride a motorcycle, etc etc etc, lest they not get to enjoy the standard of living that you want for them. Please don’t let me miss the part where you reason that Euthanasia should never be allowed (because hell, who am I to say whether I want to continue living or not); I wouldn’t want to miss it.

LOL oh yeah there’s NO misogyny in the anti-A+ crowd. Nosiree! Bitches like being used as an insult when Whiny Ass Bigot can’t think of any other way to insult those that have the temerity to disagree with their worthless bigot selves.

LOL Yeah. What an argument against A+. Agree with me, or I’ll call you slang for icky ladybits!!!

I don’t agree with the way Physioproffe presented the reasoning behind his conclusions here, but after reading the Twitter exchange I agree with the conclusions themselves. This is generally the case for me when it comes to Physioprof, aside from his recipes, which are both excellently presented and excellent in general.

Generally I think that holding the moral high ground is vastly preferable, but given the choice between someone who is mostly correct but guilty of some smaller offences and someone who is mostly incorrect, I think I will choose the person who is mostly correct, because with them I can at least hope that they’ll remedy their mistakes.

“Generally I think that holding the moral high ground is vastly preferable, but given the choice between someone who is mostly correct but guilty of some smaller offences and someone who is mostly incorrect, I think I will choose the person who is mostly correct, because with them I can at least hope that they’ll remedy their mistakes.”

Seriously? What about the truth? Why not just stand on the side of truth? Why side with authority?

Damn, you know, thinking about this, you’re at least a bit right. On the honesty side of things at least you’re on target. My words in my second post were blind reaction, not careful thought. Better to get that out there now than ignore or deny as I was ready to.

“Because, the underlying conversation is not at all important here, right?”

Well, I still maintain that when the conversation is seen in context, as in the link I linked, you’re in the wrong. The “underlying conversation,” I believe, was about sex work, and I outlined what I thought re: your response in my first post.

I may well be wrong, and I’m certainly willing to hear you out on that. I’m not a fundamentalist, afterall…I invite anyone out there to attempt to change my mind.

Assuming the very worst of me and calling me a racist and a misogynist (especially using these tactics) is going to do the exact opposite of changing my mind. It’s going to polarize the issue to the point where there’s no hope of bringing back into the realm of logical discourse.

Being wrong about something is not the same as being a racist or a misogynist.

Just one more A+’er weighing to say that this post by physioprof was done very poorly. That said, the other side of the argument has been presented in great detail by the author of those tweets.

Seems like that might be the interesting discussion to be had.

Of course, I’ll continue the derail by just commenting that yes, A+ and libertarianism are incompatible. Here’s one example, from the Libertarian party platform that we’ve been encouraged to read:

Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection.

Absolute nonsense. Willful idiocy. Complete fact-reversal.

I will completely ignore continued nonsensical arguments until someone can show that:
– smog abatement in Los Angeles was the result of private business action and not government intervention.
– Or that it was government that caused heavy metal contamination in the South San Francisco Bay.
– Or that watershed contamination by MTR is somehow the government’s fault, with private businesses being held accountable for contamination of drinking water.
– Or that the government is totes accountable for a decades-long history of problematic pesticides. BONUS POINTS
– Or… well, I could go on, but really, what’s the point.

In short, show me that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were the product of businesses owning up to mistakes and taking accountability, and I’ll concede you have a point. But I won’t hold my breath.

And it’s not just the environment where libertarianism and A+ completely diverge! Deregulated financial markets? Free market health care? Abolishing Social Security? An asinine prescription for protesting climate change as the most effective course of action? Flying Spaghetti Monster save us from just-world idealists who sincerely believe that if we just screamed “FREEDOM!” loudly enough, the world would become a paradise. Save us even more, oh FSM, from the people who clearly don’t give a fuck about other people (you know, libertarians).

Oh, and by what possible contortion of reasoning can a skeptical libertarian atheist possibly make arguments for “restor[ing] authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government.” Are you batshit insane? You want more religious homeschooling? As ATHEISTS?

A+ is incompatible with the Libertarian platform. There are some agreements in the area of social and civil rights, but even there, the libertarian anti-government stance will actively cause harm. Just because government has the ability to restrict rights does not mean that non-government associations of individuals can’t do the same fucking thing. Sheesh.

*Oh, and to be clear, of course the government is responsible for environmental contamination. Military SUPERFUND sites come to mind (but wait, SUPERFUND is… government being accountable! So don’t even pretend like this is a valid argument.)

You know, I’ve never voted libertarian my entire life. I don’t support any libertarian candidates on the ballot this year and I don’t necessarily subscribe to the platform.

You see, there’s this thing called nuance. Not all libertarians are political partisans. Many of us (a great, great many) just have a wider libertarian outlook about things, rather than a political outlook.

See, what’s happened here is a label was assigned to me (a label I assigned to myself, admittedly, though without the adjectives “racist, misogynistic, white, or d00d” attached,” and people were more than willing to jump at the opportunity to put me in their own little ideological box. It’s a massive strawman.

In point of fact, you have no idea if libertarians are incompatible with A+ because you haven’t explored the matter other than looking at a national party platform and then assigning those beliefs to any libertarian you come across. It would be like me looking at the Democratic national party platform and assigning you (if you’re a Democrat, that is) the burden of every single point presented without first asking your views on the matter.

Does that seem fair to you?

Regardless, I still hold that the OP’s actions were something other than “poor.” They were slanderous.

I attempted to make that clear by saying I was continuing the derailing, but in retrospect, that was in no way evident. My post really had nothing to do with you (hence the derailing comment).

I’d disagree with your characterization of “slander”, but I’ll up my “poor” to “a truly inept and unfair post”. That’s based on my familiarity with physioprof’s work, which isn’t comprehensive, but I’m willing to give him some benefit of the doubt, as long as he doesn’t do this again, and acknowledges a mistake here. To echo Brownian: “bad physioprof”.

In point of fact, you have no idea if libertarians are incompatible with A+ because you haven’t explored the matter other than looking at a national party platform and then assigning those beliefs to any libertarian you come across.

Well, considering that I’ve met several libertarians who serve as local leaders in their groups and receive mild local publicity (through radio and podcasts), I’m fairly confident in my assessment.

I do want to make a slight distinction here: libertarianism does come in several flavors. I’ve described myself as a civil libertarian on more than one occasion. I’ve heard people describe themselves as social libertarians, and I tend to agree with their position.

Economic or fiscal libertarians, though, I find to be dishonest, borderline sociopathic in their disregard for the harm that would result from their positions, and in general motivated by narcissism and greed. Again, talking about the ones I’ve personally met.

I think it would greatly serve civil/social libertarians to find a way to dissociate themselves from the neoliberal free market policies that have had such a disastrous effect on human welfare. Especially since those policies lead directly to power gains by people who really dislike civil/social liberties.

[ANECDOTE ALERT] Hell, I was a fellow Boy Scout with someone who later appeared in my social circles. I see him at parties every now and then, and we tend to avoid each other. :)

He argued to my face (as someone with a MSc in Environmental Engineering) that acid rain abatement was hindered by government action, and would have been taken care of faster if there were no government agencies involved. CFCs and ozone depletion were entirely a free market solution, according to him. Oh, and he wanted to abolish the EPA. To protect the environment(!). In short, he was fully on board with the Libertarian party platform.

I was more polite then, which is why I avoid him now, since I’d prefer not to cause scenes at someone else’s party. But yeesh, what willful idiocy.

It would be like me looking at the Democratic national party platform and assigning you (if you’re a Democrat, that is) the burden of every single point presented without first asking your views on the matter.

Well, I could tell you where the platform and I disagree (and yes, I am a registered Democrat). But if you’re not an economic/free-market libertarian of the flavor I denigrate above, then you putatively disagree with 85% of the party platform that shares the name of your political ideology.

Maybe you’re not actually a libertarian? Could you be… a Libertarian+? ;)

(chuckling…) And these drama kings and queens are actually referring to many non-racist, non-sexist atheists with valid concerns about the over-the-top, reactionary antics of this ‘Atheist plus’ tripe, as the ‘asshats’????

Please, someone get Myers and these dopes a mirror. Me thinks the buttock meat hangs low over their eyes.